TRI-DEP: A Trimodal Comparative Study for Depression Detection Using Speech, Text, and EEG

Annisaa Fitri Nurfidausi, Eleonora Mancini, Paolo Torroni · Oct 16, 2025 · Citations: 0

Open arXiv Find Implementation RSS feed Shortlist (0)

How to use this page

Low trust

Use this as background context only. Do not make protocol decisions from this page alone.

Best use

Background context only

What to verify

Read the full paper before copying any benchmark, metric, or protocol choices.

Evidence quality

Low

Derived from extracted protocol signals and abstract evidence.

Abstract

Depression is a widespread mental health disorder, yet its automatic detection remains challenging. Prior work has explored unimodal and multimodal approaches, with multimodal systems showing promise by leveraging complementary signals. However, existing studies are limited in scope, lack systematic comparisons of features, and suffer from inconsistent evaluation protocols. We address these gaps by systematically exploring feature representations and modelling strategies across EEG, together with speech and text. We evaluate handcrafted features versus pre-trained embeddings, assess the effectiveness of different neural encoders, compare unimodal, bimodal, and trimodal configurations, and analyse fusion strategies with attention to the role of EEG. Consistent subject-independent splits are applied to ensure robust, reproducible benchmarking. Our results show that (i) the combination of EEG, speech and text modalities enhances multimodal detection, (ii) pretrained embeddings outperform handcrafted features, and (iii) carefully designed trimodal models achieve state-of-the-art performance. Our work lays the groundwork for future research in multimodal depression detection.

Abstract-only analysis — low confidence

All signals on this page are inferred from the abstract only and may be inaccurate. Do not use this page as a primary protocol reference.

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.
The available metadata is too thin to trust this as a primary source.
The abstract does not clearly describe the evaluation setup.
The abstract does not clearly name benchmarks or metrics.

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub

Should You Rely On This Paper?

This paper is adjacent to HFEPX scope and is best used for background context, not as a primary protocol reference.

Best use

Background context only

Use if you need

Background context only.

Main weakness

This paper looks adjacent to evaluation work, but not like a strong protocol reference.

Trust level

Low

Usefulness score

0/100 • Low

Treat as adjacent context, not a core eval-method reference.

Human Feedback Signal

Not explicit in abstract metadata

Evaluation Signal

Weak / implicit signal

Usefulness for eval research

Adjacent candidate

Extraction confidence 15%

If you are doing eval pipeline work, start here:

Human Eval Hub LLM-as-Judge Hub Pairwise Preference Hub Tool-Use Eval Hub

What We Could Verify

These are the protocol signals we could actually recover from the available paper metadata. Use them to decide whether this paper is worth deeper reading.